THE WATER CRADLE
―Water, Water, Water, Where Evolutionists Have Missed Big Time
We do not have to disturb God to tell how the atheistic evolutionists have been mistaken on the origin of human beings, but their own arguments inevitably would, on account of their evidence fabricating, logic twisting, self-contradicting, taboo exerting, natural law violations, arbitrating for acceptance, hypocrisy... Frankly, what they pursue makes the evolutionists look more like politicians other than scientists. Can they at least have courage to answer this simple question:
Can they disprove that human being having a bare skin is because nature has never given their skin a chance to grow a long fur like any other primate?
Sadly for the evolutionists, fur shedding is the only "reason" they can put up for human to have a bare skin. Why is fur-shedding more valid as a reason than that the human skin is bare from day one of its existence? This fur-shedding "conclusion" alone is enough to expose the atheistic evolutionists' "research" having been unscientific and unreliable; they obviously take what they see today from other primates as the evidence to elaborate their guess and assertion about what happened in the past tens of million years.
Once Mingling in the Treetops?
How in the World Could That Have ever Happened?
No evolutionist/anthropologist has credit to preach that human beings are the descendants of some tree dwelling primates unless they can show from where those primate ancestors had started their life in the treetops. Until then, everyone can consider their preaching nonsensical .
In order to show how the atheistic view of evolution should discredit itself concerning the origin of human beings, THEWATERCRADLE develops its arguments with strictly atheist ideas that are popularly followed by the atheistic evolutionists (simply called evolutionists from here on). This author bases the arguments on comparing fossil records, historical continent movement, live bodily features of various human races and species of primate. After re-examining the evolutionists' logic and the evidence they choose to present, we cannot help to believe that the evolutionists have been seriously missed on the origin of human beings. Humans have no possibility of having any ancestors to have shared the treetops with any arboreal apes. Human's perfect bipedal gait took far more than several million years to have accomplished; this bipedal gait is impossible to have developed from the wild apes' ultra-short legs.
This author believes that everyone is entitled to an answer to the following question from the modern evolutionists and anthropologists who currently dominate the academic world: Can they show the world some materially sound evidence that all modern men are descendants of some primitive Homo sapient from some African land? So far, all they have as evidence are some migrating routes they jot down on blackboards showing to the students, but nothing else. This is not even an acceptable attitude in any serious academic study. The other way to ask for the same question is: Can they show the world that modern African men are impossible to be the descendants of some primitive Homo sapient from other continents?
Besides water, if blood sucking insects, such as mosquito, cleg fly, triatoma, knat, tick... are included in evolution's logic game, the theory of evolution would have presented to us a pronouncedly different picture about primate development. However, how much has this theory ever involved itself with the blood sucking insects in deriving the development of the primates in all its writings of nearly two centuries? Not much at all is found. With the almost “godly” power of the blood sucking insects — eternal omnipresence in an extensively long history of the earth planet, they must have been inescapably responsible for the development of some fundamental physical traits of all primates. With a nearly hairless skin, human beings could only have been defenseless against the onslaught of the blood sucking insects. However, human beings survived their swarming onslaught generation after generation while, unlike other primates, carrying no fur at all. It must have been that some distinctive environment provided human being's ancestors with a safety net that no other primates could ever share. But what is this safety net? Don’t the evolutionists argue that natural selection is the only force having propelled the evolution forward? How have the ancestors of the human beings with an almost bare skin escaped the selection that the blood sucking insects forced on them?
Evidence comparison tells us that the evolution "tree" ever jotted down by the mainstream for primate development is too far away from what logic can accept. Such a tree is usually a single “trunk” starting from one common point then branching off as widely as newly found fossils can lead to. Evidence in our comparison includes fossil evidence, history of tectonic plate movement, and the live traits that all primates carry. These comparisons eventually result in a believing that a bushy looking diagram as shown below should be more appropriate to host all the primates in their past.
In this diagram, the big green patch represents a water environment. The big blue bar represents the coexistence of a wide diversification of primates living in water all the time. Branching from it are various terrestrial primates, represented by the orange lines. Those primates leaving the water the latest in history are us, the mankind. The most prolonging water living so visualized in this diagram would at least give us confidence to answer one question:
Why do human beings contain the highest content of body fat among all species of primate?
If the hoax of arboreal origin for human must fail in logic and evidence,
if the evolutionists cannot disprove the aqua-origin for Homo sapiens,
will Darwin and his followers have credit to refute the following claim?
Natural selection is a process in which
God’s intelligent design is at work !!!